The following provides a brief explanation
for some of the most common misconceptions about Adolf Hitler.
Unfortunately in today's 'Faith-based' culture, rarely do people
look closely at the reasons or evidence of Hitler's belief, many
times confusing the beliefs of other prominent Nazis for Hitler's
views.

The entire section on Hitler's
Christianity provides ample evidence for his brand of Christianity. The
evidence itself destroys any opinions or beliefs about Hitler's alleged apostasy.

The evidence shows that:

Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism

His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian
background.

His early personal notes shows his interest
in religion and Biblical views.

He believed that the Bible represented
the history of mankind.

His Nazi party platform (their version
of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity,
and he never removed it.

He confessed his Christianity.

He tried to establish a united Reich German
Church.

Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish
synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.

He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian
churches.

He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his
speeches and proclamations.

His contemporaries, friends, Protestant
ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought
of Hitler as a Christian.

The Catholic Church never excommunicated
Hitler. He died a Catholic.

To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity
demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.

Myth 2: Hitler pretended
his Christianity only for political purposes

This one represents one of the most persistent
constructions about Hitler's Christianity. Revealingly, proponents
of this myth never provide evidence for this hypothesis. If he,
indeed, pretended himself as a Christian, then on what evidential
material does it stand on? If Hitler acted as a pretend Christian,
then were does he disown his belief in Christ? Does he write
in his private notes that he used religion only for political
purposes? Did any of his close associates or friends think so?
Where?

Of course Hitler did try to use
political force to control Christianity and he tried to establish
a unified Reich Christian Church, but this only supports his
stand on his view of "positive Christianity" as described
in the Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution).
And yes, he criticized the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy,
but so what? So do Popes and Protestant leaders. Martin Luther
himself strongly condemned the Catholic religion and thought
of it as the work of the Devil.

I suspect that those who propagate this myth rely on mainly
one source: the dubious reliability of Hitler's table talk (a second-hand
source that allegedly records the words of Hitler). The table-talk got edited
by the anti-Catholic Martin Bormann (Hitler's secretary) and describes political
views against the hierarchy of orthodox Christianity (just as Bormann would
have liked) but even here, Hitler never speaks against Jesus Christ, but rather
in favor of him. (See Hitler's
table talk and other extraneous sources). And we now know, thanks to Richard Carrier's discovery, that the anti-Christian phrases in the the English version of the table talk (which came from the French translated version) were forged, most likely by the French translator of the table-talk, Francois Genoud, who was a known forger. (source). Note, the German version of table-talk does not contain the anti-Christian phrases!

What obliterates this theory comes from
the fact that Hitler continued to express his "positive"
Christian views, well after his rise to power. If, indeed, he
needed Christianity only for political purposes, then why-oh-why
does he continue with the charade after he has established himself
as absolute dictator?

But just for the sake of argument, lets
pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that
his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians
so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does
that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler?
If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler
or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And
what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most
Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member
of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious
Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false
or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could
anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes
from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this
constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never
has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness
of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the
words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting
talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes.
In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey
to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real
Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have
it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented
reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing
Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they
both practice falsehoods!

The only evidence we have, or could
ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes
from the very confession of those making the claim. And since
Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly,
we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually
believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much
validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove
dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's
claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only
for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back
it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing
about historical fact.

Hitler showed no knowledge of Darwinian
evolution or natural selection. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he
mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution"
(in the context of natural selection).

As for Aryan superiority and his Jewish
hatred, Hitler clearly describes in Mein Kampf how he slowly
began to change his mind about the Jews from the influence of
the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. His
views with regard to anti-Semitism he said, "succumbed to
the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation
of all." (read volume 1, chapter 2). Nowhere does he explain
his anti-Jewish beliefs in Darwinian terms.

In his private notes, where he describes the Bible as
a "Monumental History of Mankind,"
Hitler outlines his views of the Aryan and the Jew, all in the context of
Bible reasoning, never in the context of Darwinian natural selection.

Moreover, Hitler viewed progeny, not in
regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical
view). He peppered his writings and speeches with "blood"
words. Examples in Mein Kampf include:

"One blood demands one Reich."

"Bavarian by blood, technically Austrian,
lived my parents..."

...the German in Austria had really been
of the best blood..."

"...the weakness of leadership will
not cause a hibernation of the state, but an awakening of all
the individual instincts which are present in the blood..."

Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication
or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line"
explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical
view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express
ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept
of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection
and served as an adjunct to his already established religious
views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological
theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social
Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America
and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the
idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems
to social systems.]

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan
superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration
in Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance
with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Nor can Christains accuse the Nazis of promting Darwinism or claim that the Holocaust came as a result of Darwinist thinking. In fact, the Nazi Germans banned writings about Darwinist philosophy. The Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939 included the banning of:

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." [translated]

and also:

"All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." [translated]

Myth 4: Hitler followed
Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy

If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy
or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?

Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even
mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super
race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior
race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented
the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book,
An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau
believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of
"superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner
(beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler
read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism
(and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the
1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt,
influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's
"superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical
race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like
Nietzsche.

Nor does it make sense that the Christian
Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed
atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists.
For example:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German propaganda article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.

The pre-Nazi Thule society began
in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving
force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis
and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed
any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.

Anyone
who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply
lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding
of Hitler.

Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical
sophistication.If any philosopher
had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which
he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's
personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's
World as Will and Representation with him throughout World
War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich
Nietzsche or his philosophy.